~Doran says Dutch side “lost a lot”; Meyers warns decisions continue to be made “for us, but not by us”~
PHILIPSBURG:--- Members of Parliament have raised serious concerns about whether Sint Maarten surrendered too much in the treaty formally dividing the border between the French and Dutch sides of the island, even as France has already completed its parliamentary approval process.
During Friday’s Central Committee meeting, MPs debated the draft Kingdom Law approving the May 26, 2023 border treaty between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the French Republic.
However, the French legislative process is already complete.
The French Senate adopted the approval legislation on April 15, 2026. The National Assembly approved the same legislation without amendment on July 16, and French President Emmanuel Macron promulgated Law No. 2026-645 on July 22. It was published in France’s Official Journal on July 23. French National Assembly legislative record, Légifrance.
That means Sint Maarten’s Parliament is raising fundamental questions about sovereignty, access and territorial control after the entire French Parliament has already authorized approval of the agreement.
The treaty cannot bind the Kingdom of the Netherlands until the Kingdom’s constitutional approval process is completed. Nevertheless, the timing left several MPs questioning how much influence Sint Maarten can realistically exercise at this advanced stage.
The agreement was signed at Belle Plaine/Belvédère in 2023 by then-Sint Maarten Prime Minister Silveria Jacobs, acting as the authorized representative of the Kingdom Government, and then-French Minister of the Interior and Overseas Territories Gérald Darmanin.
Doran: Dutch side “lost a lot”
MP Egbert Jurendy Doran placed his objection firmly on the parliamentary record.
Doran said he was part of government during the early discussions but remained deeply uncomfortable with the final demarcation.
“It never sat well with me where we are now in terms of the demarcation,” Doran said.
“I have a feeling that we were shortened as a country, as a Dutch side. Nevertheless, time will tell. I just wanted to state that for the record, because I believe that we lost a lot.”
Doran did not identify during the meeting the precise territory or rights he believed Sint Maarten lost. His statement, however, opened a much larger question: what exactly did each side gain or surrender under the final boundary settlement?
The treaty applies the principle of equidistance in Oyster Pond, dividing the water between the two jurisdictions. French parliamentary documents describe the agreement as resolving a long-standing sovereignty dispute over the pond.
The French National Assembly’s official report states that France accepted a Dutch request to classify Oyster Pond as internal waters and that innocent passage is guaranteed to vessels of all nationalities. It also states that the agreement protects rights acquired by persons and businesses before the border was formally established. French National Assembly report.
Those provisions did not remove the concerns expressed in Philipsburg.
Meyers: Decisions made for Sint Maarten, not by Sint Maarten
MP Franklin Meyers said his fundamental concern was not limited to lines drawn on a map. It was about who ultimately decides Sint Maarten’s territorial future.
Meyers argued that historical border decisions were repeatedly taken by European governments, while the people living on the island were left to deal with the consequences.
“Here you have two different scenarios, hundreds of years apart, where the decision that was taken for St. Martin was not taken by St. Martin,” Meyers said.
He questioned the legal and operational control of the narrow entrance into Oyster Pond and whether either side could restrict access during a future crisis.
Meyers pointed directly to the COVID-19 pandemic, when French authorities erected border controls between the two sides.
His concern is that, without ironclad guarantees, either France or the Kingdom could one day use the newly formalized boundary to interfere with access and movement on an island whose population has historically functioned across two jurisdictions.
“There are so many things said for us, to us, but not by us,” Meyers said. “So many things are done for us, but not by us.”
Parliament’s influence questioned
Parliament Chair Sarah A. Wescot-Williams acknowledged that France had already granted parliamentary approval.
She stressed, however, that Sint Maarten’s Parliament retains the right to question the draft Kingdom Law, submit comments, recommend changes and participate in the further handling of the legislation.
The difficulty is that MPs are not negotiating a fresh treaty. They are reviewing a Kingdom Law intended to approve an agreement already negotiated, signed and accepted by the participating governments.
Opening the underlying treaty now would be significantly more complicated than amending an ordinary draft law, because any material change could require renewed agreement with France.
Wescot-Williams noted that the treaty had been agreed to by the local governments and signed between the formal contracting parties: the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
The question now is whether parliamentary participation comes early enough to influence the substance of the agreement—or only late enough to comment on a deal that has already been politically settled.
Roseburg demands permanent Sint Maarten seat
MP Sjamira Roseburg warned that Sint Maarten’s involvement must not disappear once the treaty enters its implementation stage.
The treaty provides for a joint boundary commission that could examine the border, oversee markings and propose technical adjustments.
Roseburg demanded clarity on whether Sint Maarten will have a permanent structural seat on that commission.
“If that is not the case, then it can indeed be that others will be deciding on something that concerns Sint Maarten,” she warned.
Roseburg also wants explicit confirmation that future boundary changes cannot be made without Sint Maarten’s consent.
Parliament approved its report with the additional questions and comments. It will be sent to the Chair of the Dutch Second Chamber and to the Government of Sint Maarten.
France has already spoken through its Senate, National Assembly and President. Sint Maarten is now demanding proof that its Parliament’s voice can still make a difference before the Kingdom gives its final approval.